Yes, so did Pardew, he got them to the FA Cup final and had a 40% win ratio as well, Allardyce had a 35% win ratio

Pardew started off well and then lost his way badly. They ended the season before terribly (Cup aside), if I remember correctly, and were very patchy before Pardew was sacked. The win ratio is better but it doesn't take into account the fact that Allardyce had to re-organise the players halfway through the season.

Are we really pretending he didn't do well at palace and Sunderland now? Wonder if their fans agree

He do well, he did his job, canít stress this enough mate heís very good at that one specific job, but thatís not good enough for us and we want more.

His early work (Bolton) was incredible and ahead of his time. His deep block relegation escapes are fine, for teams of that standard, but neither of those mean heís a viable candidate now.

Logged

I knew that someday I was going to die, and I knew that before I died, two things would happen to me. That number one; I would regret my entire life, and number two; that I would want to live my life over again.

Because you write like English isnt your first language so just wondered.

it was not funny the 1st time you said this

Time and time again I see the argument "well your grammar sucks so you must be stupid" or "you spelled this wrong, you must be stupid" as part of a debate. Really, I have to ask... why? Personally I don't think it has any place in a debate, unless that debate happens to be about grammar/spelling (or if someone's throwing out personal attacks based on grammar/spelling but can't master their own... but that's beside this particular point).

It simply seems immature to me, like something you would do to derail the debate train when you know you're losing. I admit, it's something I used to do, but those moments for me now are few and far between. Given that I sadly see this used constantly in this forum, I figured this would be the best place to ask.

So, if you do like to use this sort of crutch in an argument, then why? Or, if you don't, why do you think people do?

Time and time again I see the argument "well your grammar sucks so you must be stupid" or "you spelled this wrong, you must be stupid" as part of a debate. Really, I have to ask... why? Personally I don't think it has any place in a debate, unless that debate happens to be about grammar/spelling (or if someone's throwing out personal attacks based on grammar/spelling but can't master their own... but that's beside this particular point).

It simply seems immature to me, like something you would do to derail the debate train when you know you're losing. I admit, it's something I used to do, but those moments for me now are few and far between. Given that I sadly see this used constantly in this forum, I figured this would be the best place to ask.

So, if you do like to use this sort of crutch in an argument, then why? Or, if you don't, why do you think people do?

To be honest it's genuinely difficult to understand what you're saying at times due the lack of punctuation etc, that's why people ask. The fact that you've just managed to put together a perfectly readable post just proves that you can do it when you need to.

To be honest it's genuinely difficult to understand what you're saying at times due the lack of punctuation etc, that's why people ask. The fact that you've just managed to put together a perfectly readable post just proves that you can do it when you need to.

Likes...

To be honest it's genuinely difficult to understand what you're saying at times due the lack of punctuation etc, that's why people ask. The fact that you've just managed to put together a perfectly readable post just proves that you can do it when you need to.

it would also help if they were reading back and not just what I posted and LOOKING for something in it to jump on

Time and time again I see the argument "well your grammar sucks so you must be stupid" or "you spelled this wrong, you must be stupid" as part of a debate. Really, I have to ask... why? Personally I don't think it has any place in a debate, unless that debate happens to be about grammar/spelling (or if someone's throwing out personal attacks based on grammar/spelling but can't master their own... but that's beside this particular point).

It simply seems immature to me, like something you would do to derail the debate train when you know you're losing. I admit, it's something I used to do, but those moments for me now are few and far between. Given that I sadly see this used constantly in this forum, I figured this would be the best place to ask.

So, if you do like to use this sort of crutch in an argument, then why? Or, if you don't, why do you think people do?

I am genuinely interested in knowing if you are from England or not, thats all. I'm not asking to cause an argument, or deflect from the topic.

As I've said, if we're looking for a man who'll keep us in the league he's as good an appointment as any. He'll have done a solid job if we finish the season tucked in behind the top 6 bearing in mind the way we started this campaign.

The summer is the chance to wipe the slate clean though and plan for the future and you don't do that with a man with 12 months left on his deal and someone you had to tempt out of retirement to take the role in the first place.

And get who though. I've no issue with us looking for better in any and every position but most just want anyone but him

He do well, he did his job, canít stress this enough mate heís very good at that one specific job, but thatís not good enough for us and we want more.

His early work (Bolton) was incredible and ahead of his time. His deep block relegation escapes are fine, for teams of that standard, but neither of those mean heís a viable candidate now.

Well he's in the job already so what would he have to do from now til the end of the season to make him a viable candidate? The problem I have is people seem to be saying it actually doesn't matter what he does

All I'm actually suggesting is that we judge him on the job he's doing. So far it's been okay. That's not something that should provoke the vast majority to demand anyone but him

Would people be happy for us to pay him off and get silva?? The guy from Swansea? Moyes even?

If we have a great option then let him go. Let's not just do it because the fans don't like him